(July 18, 2013 at 1:52 pm)smax Wrote: So, in a "free" country, it didn't bother you that someone with no legal right to territory was telling you where you could and couldn't go?

Also, it didn't bother you that you were offered a lethal ultimatum?

You've never met a Texas redneck apparently. All that mattered was that this crazy dude, with a violent tendency, didn't want us around his neighborhood. Hell, it was a crappy neighborhood anyway. It wasn't like hot, naked chicks were all over the place or anything.

"Fuck it, dude. See you later. Nice to meet ya, by the way."

And it wasn't a lethal ultimatum. He didn't say he was going to kill us. He said he was going to shoot us.

I had two friends that got shot growing up. Neither one died or even suffered a permanent injury.

(July 18, 2013 at 4:52 pm)Rahul Wrote: And it wasn't a lethal ultimatum. He didn't say he was going to kill us. He said he was going to shoot us.

I had two friends that got shot growing up. Neither one died or even suffered a permanent injury.

Using a firearm is considered deadly force for a reason. While your friends got lucky, it's all too easy to die from a gunshot wound.

(July 18, 2013 at 3:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: However, Oliver is correct also. Any redneck asshole can put a gun in his belt and go out and follow a black guy and should the guy being followed turn and say "why are you following me" the redneck can pull his gun and shoot if if he CLAIMS he thought he was in danger. That is the precedent this verdict establishes.

Bull...shit. You are forgetting the one piece of evidence that everyone seems to be ignoring in this thread: there was an eye-witness who reported Trayvon's attack to the police over the phone.

If that eye-witness had not existed, I doubt very much that the verdict would be the same. The jury may have found him not guilty of murder, but certainly not of the manslaughter charge.

Quote:The problem is the law, Tibs. And please do not insult my ( or your own) intelligence by suggesting that if the shooter was black and the victim was white the result would have been the same. Take the example of the woman who was sentenced to 20 years for firing a "warning shot." She was black.

That a black woman was sentenced to 20 years in jail for firing a warning shot does not suddenly make Zimmerman a racist, which was what the media were trying to show from day 1. The fact is, there is more evidence suggesting that Zimmerman has helped the black community in the past than there is to show that he was racially profiling anyone that night.

Quote:You're a great guy, Tibs, but you are dreadfully naive about racial conditions in the US.

I'm aware of the racial conditions in the US. I just don't think you should paint every person who shoots a black guy as a racist.

---

(July 18, 2013 at 3:56 pm)Red Celt Wrote: Zimmerman placed himself in a position of danger, whilst not being physically capable of handling himself in such a situation - other than by using his gun.

You do not know that Zimmerman placed himself in any danger. There is a staggering lack of evidence between the time Zimmerman hung up the phone to the police, and the eye-witness called the police to report the beating. The only evidence we have for that time period is Zimmerman's words. Now, he may be lying, but you cannot say with any degree of certainty whether he is or not, yet you continue to state (seemingly factually) that he was doing this or that. I'm curious as to where you get your evidence for all this knowledge about the events between the two phone calls, because it certainly wasn't presented in court.

Quote:I listened to all of the audio recorded that night - from Zimmerman to 911 and the residents who also called 911. He didn't describe Treyvon as peering into properties, ready to rob them. He said he was acting suspiciously. Who was he to judge such a thing?

Who was he to judge? The leader of the neighborhood watch, who had been on patrol to try and catch these criminals in the act, that's who. You are allowed to judge suspicious behaviour, and wandering around a gated community at night, in the rain, looking around, when there had been reports of burglaries, is suspicious behaviour. It wasn't Trayvon's fault that he looked suspicious, but if someone thinks you are suspicious, they can confront you about what you are doing.

Quote:Who the hell has the authority to say whether someone is acting suspiciously?

Anyone has the authority. It's not some official thing you have to get a license for y'know. Anyone is free to think someone is suspicious, and anyone is free to approach someone and ask them about what they are doing. What you have to have authority for is restraining someone, arresting someone, etc.

Quote:Treyvon didn't deserve to die that night. He was minding his own business. He walks near a guy in a truck who is staring at him whilst talking on his mobile. He keeps staring at him. He becomes suspicious, pulls up his hoody and runs off, getting away from the strange man.

Again, I'm fascinated by your in-depth knowledge of events that happened despite no evidence of them emerging in court.

Quote:He tells his girlfriend that some weirdo is following him. He confronts the guy... and goes further than he should have done. Perhaps he had good reason to. Perhaps he didn't. We only have Zimmerman's word about the conversation, and Zimmerman was doing his very best not to be convicted. We'll never know exactly what was said... but what if Zimmerman gave him a very good reason to defend himself?

That's the entire point. We'll never know. There is no evidence. You cannot (should not) convict someone when there is no evidence, especially when there was evidence that supports your story.

Quote:Treyvon matched the description of previous burglars? How? He was black. Congratulations on categorising criminals based on skin colour. How enlightened of him.

That is not how Zimmerman categorised him, and you know it (well, you would if you listened to the 911 call as you claim to have).

Quote:It doesn't matter what history Treyvon had. Zimmerman had no knowledge of that, that night. He once was discovered with jewelry and a "burglary tool" (screwdriver) in his bag at school... did he have a screwdriver on him that night? No.

Again, missing the point. The media painted Trayvon as some innocent kid. This had the effect of people (like yourself) turning against Zimmerman before any evidence had even been presented to a court. So much for "innocent until proven guilty"...if the media says a guy killed an innocent kid, the guy must have done it.

In my opinion, that is one of the greatest tragedies in this case. The media turned it into such a circus that in the end, two men lost their lives.

Personally, I don't see this as a racial issue at all. I don't think Zimmerman is a racist. I think Zimmerman used extremely bad judgement about how to deal with a bad situation that was developing in his neighborhood, and that bad judgement led to a fatal confrontation.

It wasn't Zimmerman's job to confront anyone. That's the only element of this that bothers me. I don't care what race the victim was, I just care that there was a victim.

For most people, it's a racial issue that they have a biased view of one way or the other. But this really isn't about race, and it's a shame that it has to be perceived as something that is.

The sad thing is, as long as we (society) perceive things in such a limited and biased way, we'll always be plagued by racism of all kinds. When we learn to weigh the merits of a subject instead of inserting our own partial and self serving perspectives, then we may have a chance at a truly harmonious existence.

(July 18, 2013 at 3:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Sadly, the Divine Tiberius is correct. Zimmerman is a killer but he was found not guilty of murder. The first is a value judgement the second a legal verdict.

However, Oliver is correct also. Any redneck asshole can put a gun in his belt and go out and follow a black guy and should the guy being followed turn and say "why are you following me" the redneck can pull his gun and shoot if if he CLAIMS he thought he was in danger. That is the precedent this verdict establishes.

The problem is the law, Tibs. And please do not insult my ( or your own) intelligence by suggesting that if the shooter was black and the victim was white the result would have been the same. Take the example of the woman who was sentenced to 20 years for firing a "warning shot." She was black.

You're a great guy, Tibs, but you are dreadfully naive about racial conditions in the US.

Sorry cantankerous old hippie dude, if anyone's naive on racial issues in the U.S. it's you and the other kool aid drinking dumbasses who have thrown out all the trial evidence in favor of mob vigilantism because Zimmerman is half white...Tibs has it right. You don't. According to the most recent FBI reports 91% of black homicide victims were killed by other blacks ( The Bureau of Justice puts that number a little higher at 93%), and not to mention the high black on black murder rate in Chicago. It's a shame that you and your ilk aren't as equally passionate in denouncing the black on black murder rate or the black on white murder rate. Still waiting for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to show up in Chicago leading protests to denounce the black on black murder rate there. If the shooter had been black and the victim white, the incident wouldn't gotten the national media attention as the Zimmerman case did. The 91% black on black murder rate isn't news worthy but one half white guy who shoots and kills a black guy in self defense is. The problem is with the way this whole incident has been covered in the media, especially with MSLSD so-called News....

The Black woman who got 20 years for firing a warning shot: according to Florida law, if the woman had the weapon on her person and fired the warning shot to ward off her abusive ex husband at the time they were arguing, the law would have been on her side...but because she left to get the gun and then came back and fired it in his direction she violated the law...

http://topconservativenews.com/2013/07/f...e-murders/

(July 18, 2013 at 5:15 pm)A Theist Wrote: Sorry cantankerous old hippie dude, if anyone's naive on racial issues in the U.S. it's you and the other kool aid drinking dumbasses who have thrown out all the trial evidence in favor of mob vigilantism because Zimmerman is half white...Tibs has it right. You don't. According to the most recent FBI reports 91% of black homicide victims were killed by other blacks ( The Bureau of Justice puts that number a little higher at 93%), and not to mention the high black on black murder rate in Chicago. It's a shame that you and your ilk aren't as equally passionate in denouncing the black on black murder rate or the black on white murder rate. Still waiting for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to show up in Chicago leading protests to denounce the black on black murder rate there. If the shooter had been black and the victim white, the incident wouldn't gotten the national media attention as the Zimmerman case did. The 91% black on black murder rate isn't news worthy but one half white guy who shoots and kills a black guy in self defense is. The problem is with the way this whole incident has been covered in the media, especially with MSLSD so-called News....

The Black woman who got 20 years for firing a warning shot: according to Florida law, if the woman had the weapon on her person and fired the warning shot to ward off her abusive ex husband at the time they were arguing, the law would have been on her side...but because she left to get the gun and then came back and fired it in his direction she violated the law...

http://topconservativenews.com/2013/07/f...e-murders/

Does the fact that more blacks are killed by blacks justify the dismissal of racism as irrelevant????

What kind of weird perception is that?!

"Oh let`s ignore the crime in which a white guy kills a black guy cause most black guy kill each other anyway!"

And besides, of what significants is that information in this case?!?! Why did you bring it up? Does it have any significants for this case?! Or did you simply bring it up because the victim was black?????

(July 18, 2013 at 5:18 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote: Does the fact that more blacks are killed by blacks justify the dismissal of racism as irrelevant????

What kind of weird perception is that?!

There is more black-on-white racism than white-on-black. Of course (as much as I hate using that word) mainstream media don't talk about it because it doesn't sell well to PC crowd. I dare you to go to black neighborhood at night, not too far from where I live, as a white guy.

(July 18, 2013 at 4:54 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: Using a firearm is considered deadly force for a reason. While your friends got lucky, it's all too easy to die from a gunshot wound.

Deadly Force: An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.

I assume they consider any bullet hole in a human body "serious bodily injury". I think that's a little silly though. Even like a .22 gunshot in your calf or something? That's not serious in the slightest IMO. Must be soft city slickers defining these sorts of things.

I guarantee you that I can shoot you without killing you. And I know he could have shot me without killing me.

Don't get me wrong, I thought he was being quite rude.

But like I said, it was a shitty neighborhood. So we just departed.

(July 18, 2013 at 4:52 pm)Rahul Wrote: You've never met a Texas redneck apparently. All that mattered was that this crazy dude, with a violent tendency, didn't want us around his neighborhood. Hell, it was a crappy neighborhood anyway. It wasn't like hot, naked chicks were all over the place or anything.

So, in your mind, it's okay that he was demanding that you leave because the place wasn't worth hanging around in the first place?

I'm trying to follow your logic here.

Quote:"Fuck it, dude. See you later. Nice to meet ya, by the way."

I'm not blaming you for leaving, I'm just telling you that not everyone is going to react as you did. In fact, that's how many wars have started: over territory being disputed.

Quote:And it wasn't a lethal ultimatum. He didn't say he was going to kill us. He said he was going to shoot us.

First of all, "lethal" does not necessarily mean "Sure death". It's generally accepted that lethal is something that will cause great damage and could potentially kill you.

However, even if you accept only the most extreme definition of the word, we are still talking about someone threatening you with a deadly weapon, which could very easily kill you regardless of the users intent.

Quote:I had two friends that got shot growing up. Neither one died or even suffered a permanent injury.

Oh, well then I guess it's perfectly okay to threaten or even shoot someone simply because you don't like them exercising their natural right to go wherever they please. They'll probably survive your assualt anyway.

Oh wait, Trayvon didn't survive. We might have to rethink that approach.

(July 18, 2013 at 5:18 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote:

(July 18, 2013 at 5:15 pm)A Theist Wrote: Sorry cantankerous old hippie dude, if anyone's naive on racial issues in the U.S. it's you and the other kool aid drinking dumbasses who have thrown out all the trial evidence in favor of mob vigilantism because Zimmerman is half white...Tibs has it right. You don't. According to the most recent FBI reports 91% of black homicide victims were killed by other blacks ( The Bureau of Justice puts that number a little higher at 93%), and not to mention the high black on black murder rate in Chicago. It's a shame that you and your ilk aren't as equally passionate in denouncing the black on black murder rate or the black on white murder rate. Still waiting for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to show up in Chicago leading protests to denounce the black on black murder rate there. If the shooter had been black and the victim white, the incident wouldn't gotten the national media attention as the Zimmerman case did. The 91% black on black murder rate isn't news worthy but one half white guy who shoots and kills a black guy in self defense is. The problem is with the way this whole incident has been covered in the media, especially with MSLSD so-called News....

The Black woman who got 20 years for firing a warning shot: according to Florida law, if the woman had the weapon on her person and fired the warning shot to ward off her abusive ex husband at the time they were arguing, the law would have been on her side...but because she left to get the gun and then came back and fired it in his direction she violated the law...

http://topconservativenews.com/2013/07/f...e-murders/

Does the fact that more blacks are killed by blacks justify the dismissal of racism as irrelevant????

What kind of weird perception is that?!

"Oh let`s ignore the crime in which a white guy kills a black guy cause most black guy kill each other anyway!"

And besides, of what significants is that information in this case?!?! Why did you bring it up? Does it have any significants for this case?! Or did you simply bring it up because the victim was black?????

Where did I say that racism wasn't relevant? It's especially relevant when you want to dismiss and ignore the 91% black on black murder rate and the disproportionate black on white crime as opposed to the white on black crimes to lynch a half white guy who was tried in a court of law and found innocent. That's the significance...and besides, self defense, not racism was the factor in this incident.